HPS READINGS 1-6.docx

9
Pages

356
Views

Unlock Document

School

University of Toronto St. George

Department

History and Philosophy of Science and Technology

Course

HPS100H1

Professor

Hakob Barseghyan

Semester

Fall

Description

WORLDVIEWS HPS Midterm Review (Readings only)
Chapter 1
Worldview:
- There is no standard definition. It refers to a system of beliefs that are interconnected in
something similar to a jigsaw puzzle. It is not merely a collection of separate, independent,
unrelated beliefs but instead an intertwined, interrelated, interconnected system of beliefs.
Aristotle’s Beliefs (300 BC to AD 1600)
- Set of beliefs shared by a large segment of western culture based on Aristotle’s beliefs.
Examples of his beliefs:
- Earth is in the centre of the universe. It is stationary and things revolve around the earth.
- Four basic elements in the sublunar region, (btwn earth and moon) earth, water, air, fire.
- Objects in superlunar region (beyond the moon, incl moon, sun, stars) are composed of a 5 th
element named ether. Each element has essential nature which is why it behaves its way.
- Essential nature of each basic element is reflected in the way it tends to move.
- Earth element has a natural tendency to move toward the centre of the universe. (this is why
rocks fall straight down, since the centre of the earth is the centre of the universe)
- Water also has a tendency to move toward the centre of the universe (ex. When dirt and water
are mixed, both move downward but water will eventually end up above.
- Air moves toward a region above earth and water, below fire. (Ex. Air, when blown into water,
bubbles up through water)
- Fire has a tendency to move away from the centre (fire burns upward through air).
- Ether, composed of planets, stars, tends to move in a naturally perfect circular movement. (the
plants and stars continuously move in circles about the earth)
- Sublunar region: object in motion will naturally come to a halt because the elements composing
it have reached their natural place or because something (ex. Surface of the earth) prevents
them from continuing toward their natural place.
- Stationary object will remain, unless there is a source of motion (self motion, towards its natural
place, or an external source, like pushing)
- Aristotle also had views about ethics, politics, bio, psych, proper method for investigations etc
- Although his beliefs were wrong, based on the data available at the time, they were justified
- They were not random in the sense that they formed an interrelated, interlocking system of
beliefs. They are not haphazard but instead like a puzzle, fitting together coherently/consistently
- Pieces of a jigsaw are not independent or isolated, but interconnected and a consistent whole.
- Each belief is closely tied to the beliefs around it. Ex. Earth being in the centre connects with the
element earth having the tendency to move towards the centre of the universe. Earth is comprised of the earthy element, so it fits together nicely. Or objects will move only with a
source of motion. Earth is heavy, it will not be moved.
- There are differences between the core and the peripheral pieces of the puzzle.
- A core piece cannot be replaced without changing the entire puzzle. A piece near the periphery
can be replaced with little alteration.
- Ex. Aristotle believed there were 5 plants, he could have easily added a sixth. In contrast,
consider the earth being the centre. If changed, the entire puzzle would have to change.
Aristotle’s World View
- Worldview is a more generalized notion. For example, the western world from the death of
Aristotle to the 1600s shared an Aristotelian way of looking at the world. This doesn’t mean
everyone believed it exactly or nothing was added/modified.
- For instance, Aristotelian beliefs were mixed with religious beliefs. Some people believed in
Platonic based systems as an alternative
- 300 BC to the 1600s were very Aristotelian based.
Newtonian World View (Isaac Newton 1642-1727)
- Early 1600s, new evidence (telescope) arose that the Earth moved around the sun. This
discovery meant that the Aristotelian worldview was not viable.
Examples of beliefs:
- Earth revolves on its axis, every 24 hrs. Earth/plants move in elliptic orbits around the sun.
- A bit more than 100 elements.
- Objects behave the way they do bc of the influence of external forces (ex. Gravity)
- Objects like the planets, stars etc are composed of same basic elements as objects on the earth
- Same laws describing objects on earth (ex. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion) apply to
the objects such as planets and stars
- This is the worldview most of the western world was raised on and the jigsaw theory still
applies. Both views form a system however have different core beliefs.
Evidence
- Do we really have any direct evidence that the earth moves around the sun? We do not feel the
movement, or high winds against us if we were to ride a bike. The world looks stationary outside
our windows!
- It is reasonable, however, because it fits with the books, teachers etc.
- General point: we believe because it fits in our jigsaw puzzle
- Although most of us share beliefs, they are not beliefs we arrive at by common sense or
experience. We were simply raised on them which is why they seem correct. Chapter 2 p 22-27
- Correspondence theories of truth: what makes a belief true is that it corresponds to an
independent objective reality. What makes it false is that it fails to correspond to that reality
- Coherence theories of truth: what makes a belief true is that it coherers with an overall
collection of belief. It is false because it fails to cohere.
- Reality refers to a “real” reality that is objective, independent of us, and in no way depends on
what people believe that reality to be like. Our beliefs do not affect reality.
- Individualistic version and the science based version are two different theories but are both
varying theories of truth: what makes a belief true is that it coherers with an overall collection of
belief. It is false because it fails to cohere.
- Individualistic version and the science based version are two different theories but are both
varying types of coherence theories.
Probs/puzzles about correspondence theories of truth
- Representational theory of perception: general theory involving our senses. Most easily
illustrated with focus on vision. Our senses provide representations of things in the external
world.
- We are in a sense isolated from the world because there is no way for us to now if the
representations provided by our sense are accurate.
- To assess the accuracy of a representation, we need to compare the representation and the
thing represented.
- However there is no way to compare our own visual representation to the object itself because
we are unable to step outside our own consciousness.
- Comparing a photograph to an object will not work because it is comparing one representation
to another. There is no way to know what reality is really like!
- Total Recall Scenario: based on a sci fi movie. If one wants a vacation but cannot afford it, there
is the option of having the experience planted in his mind. The experiences are a virtual reality
so it is impossible to tell it apart from the real thing. Reality or of realistic but unreal images?
- Similarly, we have no way of knowing whether we are experiencing a Total Recall scenario.
- Correspondence theory is a theory what makes a belief true or false, whereas the accuracy
discussion and total recall discussion make an epistemological point about what we can know.
- What makes beliefs true or false is different than such epistemological questions.
Probs about coherence theories of truth
- Do not allow for the possibility that a group might hold a wrong belief
- No way to specify who counts as a member of the group in question (they are not well defined)
- No shared set of beliefs that are consistent (as with any group)
Chapter Six Hume’s problem of induction (1711-1776)
- When we reason, present or consider arguments, our arguments almost always contain implied
premises. Implied premises are premises that are necessary in order for the reasoning to be
plausible but are implied, not explicitly stated.
- Ex. We agree to meet for lunch on Sunday. Your car is broken. I say there is a bus that runs from
your house to the place. Implied is that buses run on Sundays,
- Almost all reasoning involves implied premises.
- Inductive reasoning: in the past, this has always occurred; in the future, this will probably
continue to occur.
- THE FUTURE WILL CONTINUE TO BE LIKE THE PAST.
- The implied premise is necessary because if the statement is not true, the future will not be like
the past, the past is no guide for the future, and inferences about the future are not reliable.
- If asked “why believe the future will continue to be like the past?” the best reason is summed up
in the following inference: in our past experience, the future was like the past; the future will
probably continue to be like the past.
- What is being implied? THE FUTURE WILL CONTINUE TO BE LIKE THE PAST.
- Hume’s point is that every instance of inductive reasoning depends on the implied premise that
the future will continue to be like the past. Inferences about the future depend on an
assumption that cannot be justified thus they cannot themselves be logically justified.
- Hume’s point covers all inferences about the future. He also thought that making inferences
about the future was innate. We cannot logically justify our inferences about the future.
Hempel’s Raven Paradox (1905-1997)
- Consider that we are astronauts working on quasars. We notice that the first few we have seen
are located a great distance from the earth. Years go on, it is still true.
- We must consider logical statements such as “all quasars are located a great distance from
earth” A general statement like this is logically equivalent to its contrapositive, in this case, to
the statement “all objects not located at a great distance from the earth are not quasars”
- A and B are equivalent, B equals A, both are equally supported (including observations).
- He is pointing out that there is something odd about what seems a very basic pattern of
inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning supports general statements.
Goodman’s Gruesome Problem (1908-1998) “New” riddle of induction
- Consider: All emeralds are green. The predicate, green, is a projectable predicate because our
past says all emeralds are green we can project the future will be the same. We are justified in
projecting its applications for the future.
- Now, a new predicate, “grue.” Ex. An object is grue if it is green and first observed before new
years day 2020 and blue after. Every emerald so far has at least been grue, the inductive
statement that all observed emeralds will be green = in the future, all observed emeralds will be
grue. - However, we would never make the inference that all future emeralds will be grue especially
those after new years day 2020.
- GRUE is a nonprojectible predicate; it is constructed and involves references to time and so on.
- Goodman’s main question was what the difference was. He is not suggesting we should believe
that all emeralds observed will be grue, given how obvious the differences between the
predicat